Expanded Horizons

The Unlikely First-Place Teams

Back on April 4, when many of our writers made their staff predictions, not one person picked either the San Diego Padres or the Cincinnati Reds to win their division. The average ranking for the Reds put them fourth in the six-team National League Central, while the average Padres' ranking had them finishing last in the five-team NL West. The Reds did appear as high as second on a few ballots, but the Padres ranked dead last on every single one.

As of the end of play on Sunday, both teams stand atop their respective divisions. The Padres remain a half-game ahead of the Giants, despite being swept in a three-game series by the Dodgers. The Reds, meanwhile, capitalized on a sliding Cardinals team by going 8-2 in their last 10 to put them in first by a half-game. How likely are these two improbable division leaders to maintain their early success?

First, a disclaimer is in order. Before we go reading too much into the standings in mid-May, at the same point last season, the Blue Jays were three games up in the American League East, the Mets were in first place in the NL East, and the Royals were playing above .500. Nevertheless, the games played so far really count, and the difference in the standings has to be determined on the field. Whatever we might say about a team's true talent or regression to the mean (as people ‘round these parts have been known to do), wins earned in April remain on the ledger in September.

Like Noble Cincinnatus, They Accept First Place Only Reluctantly

Our analysis of team performance, as is traditional, begins with Pythagoras. Currently, the Reds' Pythagorean record is 17-20 (three games worse than their actual record), while their Pythagenpat record has them just fractional games below .500. Their third-order projection is 18-19, which suggests that the Reds have been about a .500-quality team so far. That may be strong enough to hang tough with the Cardinals for a while, but PECOTA saw the Cardinals as a 93-win team before the season, and Redleg fans should hope their home nine can put some additional daylight between them and the Cardinals.

The pitching and defense have not been significantly better. The defense ranks 16th (slightly below average) in Park-Adjusted Defensive Efficiency (PADE), a measure of the rate at which the Reds have converted balls in play into outs. So far, the standout pitcher has been rookie phenom and 2009 first-rounder Mike Leake, who has put up a nifty 4-0 record and a 3.09 ERA. The peripherals, though, suggest some caution: Leake has just a 33/20 K/BB ratio in 46 2/3 innings, though he has induced grounders in over half of all plate appearances. His .245 BABIP is tough to accord with the Reds' average defense, particularly in light of his ground-ball tendencies. His 4.23 SIERA is much closer to what we can expect going forward.

Were it not for outcomes on balls in play as miserable as Leake’s have been good, people would be talking about Aaron Harang’s comeback year. The 32-year-old has a 3.75 K/BB ratio and an uncharacteristically high ground-ball percentage despite his 6.02 ERA. The combination has conspired to give Harang a 3.51 SIERA. The rest of the rotation has clustered around league average, with decent efforts from Johnny Cueto (3.94 SIERA) and Homer Bailey (4.26).

Taken together, these elements suggest that the Reds are a slightly pitching-heavy squad with some holes in their lineup and a mix of over- and under-performers in the rotation. If that sounds like the description of a team that goes .500 the rest of the way, it’s because that’s what it is most likely to be. Even that would put the Reds at 84-78, which would be the team’s best finish since 2000 and could give them a chance at the playoffs. If Brandon Phillips can rebound a little bit, and Jay Bruce can complete the Feats of Strength to appease the BABIP gods, no one should be surprised to see meaningful baseball in Cincinnati this September.

The Padres have simultaneously surprised more people with their hot start and justified believing in it more than the Reds. Their 22-15 Pythagorean record is two wins better than their actual record, and their third-order results are slightly better still. Like many surprising teams (most recently the 2008 Rays), the Padres have played excellent defense. They rank third in the majors in PADE, and have converted 73 percent of balls in play into outs. By UZR, they have been remarkably good at center (where Tony Gwynn, Jr. and Scott Hairston have both been above average), second base (David Eckstein), third base (Chase Headley), first base (Adrian Gonzalez), and shortstop (Everth Cabrera). Their only truly below-average performer so far has been Kyle Blanks in left field, but even he has not been as brutal as his worst plays can make him seem.

The pitching, while good, has certainly benefited from the strong defense. Mat Latos, only recently a touted prospect, has quickly become the most effective starter on the staff. His last start was a shutout in which he allowed just one hit (on an extremely close play at first, albeit to the slow-footed Eli Whiteside), didn’t walk any batters, and struck out six. His control is excellent, and many expect better strikeout numbers as he becomes more comfortable pitching in the majors.

Two other starters, Kevin Correia (26) and Wade LeBlanc (25), have also performed quite well, although their success is more likely attributable to the strong defense behind them and the favorable home park. Each has a higher ERA on the road than at home, and both have SIERAs higher than their ERAs: Correia’s is 3.67 and LeBlanc’s is 4.19. Those are both still useful starters, and as long as Jon Garland can continue to belly-up to the innings buffet, the Padres should have no problem preventing runs. Together, the pitching and defense have led the Padres to allow just 2.97 runs per game, a mark that has them on pace to allow fewer than 500 runs. Wouldn’t that be a fancy—if extremely unlikely—trick?

There is one pretty weird thing about the Padres’ pitching. They have the fewest hit batsmen (3) of any pitching staff in baseball (the median team has 11). It’s not much, but it does demonstrate one way in which the Padres have been good in an unconventional way. They are also an above-average base-running team, and they rank ninth in the majors in Equivalent Base Running Runs (EqBRR). Their efforts on the basepaths are led by Will Venable (1.8 EqBRR), Headley (1.2), and Gwynn (1.0). If Cabrera can become a little smarter in his stolen-base opportunities, he has the legs to end up helping the Padres even more in the EqBRR department (he was 73-for-89 in 2008 at low-A Asheville).

Granted, the offense is otherwise pretty mediocre. Even Adrian Gonzalez, who leads the team in batting runs (7), has been off so far. His .250/.366/.445 line so far would bode poorly for what the Padres could get for him in trade, only now it looks like they might not trade him at all, given their hot start. Blanks (.162/.284/.333) hasn’t come close to matching expectations, but drop 100 points of batting average on him and things start to look significantly better. The rest of the team lives in the doldrums between 600 and 725 OPS, which is no great shakes even after you adjust for the home park.

As long as the Padres can keep playing good defense, they have a real shot at winning the NL West. The Dodgers look weak after a lackadaisical offseason, and if you believe the Giants will continue to score 4.4 runs per game, I’ve got a San Francisco treat for you. The Rockies may pose the biggest threat to the Friars, but the Padres have so far played well enough to earn their top spot.

Question of the Day

Which of these two teams would you be more surprised to win its division? Is your answer different today than it was before the start of the season? If so, what have you seen so far that led you to change your mind?

Thanks for the article on this Tommy. I've been thinking about this myself lately.

I would be surprised if either team won the division. I'd be slightly more surprised to see the Padres win the NL West because of the division. Giants, Dodgers, and Rockies seems tougher to win than Cardinals, Cubs, Brewers in my opinion.

As a Padres fan I am enjoying the ride, but waiting for it to end. I did not think they deserved their universal basement prediction, but I did not think they would contend for the title.

While a close series, the Dodger sweep highlighted how much better their offense is while matching up fine on the pitching end. So they will have a tough time beating LA. And Colorado.

The SF domination is flukey, but I do feel at this point SD and SF are nearly identical teams, though SD plays better defense.

The only hope for winning is if the young outfielders start hitting better (Hairston has been fine, but out; Blanks may need to be sent down; Venable is solid in his platoon but needs to mash better; Gwynn has been awful) and Cabrera improves what we get out of SS. And everything that is going right stays right. Hmmmm. I can hope.

The starting pitching for the Padres will eventually decline, because pitchers like Jon Garland aren't quite this good.

Still, the Padres haven't been inordinately lucky. We've gotten virtually nothing (somewhat predictably) from our best pitcher, had our starting SS injured for most of the season and now have lost Scott Hairston.

Only one hitter is really hitting wildly above expectations (Torrealba) so there's probably some upside to the hitting.

My quick reaction is, "yeah, you're right." You have Lincecum and the Padres don't have anyone near that, and then Sanchez/Cain/Zito (though still not sold on Zito's full recovery). But then I did this pull:

This is road numbers for the two teams. I took road because to compensate for Petco, which actually favors SFN because 4 of those road games are in Petco.

You are right, but thus far, SDG has been pitching extremely well, not just an artifact of Petco or incredibly lucky BABIP (outside Garland).

"The SF domination is flukey, but I do feel at this point SD and SF are nearly identical teams, though SD plays better defense."

As a Giants homer, I'm not quite ready to believe that the Padres have starters to match the Giants. Leblanc is better than Wellemeyer, but I think the Giants front four is better. Latos is a stud, though.

Padres pitching is unsustainable (esp. Garland), but the majority of the roster should hit better than they have so far, so I expect to see some of the pitching decline offset by offensive improvement. It sure is fun to see the Padres run the bases well. I can see Scioscia influence on Bud Black for sure.

I think the Padres will hang around at the edges of the race all season, but I think Colorado will have too much in the end.

Cincinnati isn't likely to win the division, but that pitching has to make St. Louis nervous.

The two West divisions are completely impossible for me to figure out. Success in all other divisions seems to follow from teams doing relatively easily understood, predictable things. I have no idea WHAT predisposes a West team to success, this year or any other time. Serious study is called for on this one!

A big chunk of the Reds mediocre defensive performance to date has come at the hand of Drew Stubbs, who is by all accounts a terrific defender. Other poor defensive performances have come from Rolen, Cabrera, and Gomes. Only the latter two are truly below average from a talent level. I don't think their current defensive performance is reflective of their true talent and that you'll see them move in the top the 10 as the season goes on.

That said, I think your 84 win estimate sounds about right. But they have 88 win upside if the pitching stays solid. The RS-RA total was a bit skewed by a few early blowouts where the SP exploded. Obviously you can't just toss out the bad and keep the good, but I wouldn't be shocked to see them finish with something like 780 RS to 740 RA, which would give them a pthpat of 85 wins.

In many ways, the Padres and Giants seem to me to be carbon copies; obviously, the Giants pitchers are better, but the Padres, at least at home, seem to be able to use the spacious park to their advantage. It's more down to their offenses, which can effectively scrape together a few runs for their pitchers to win with, but with lineups that seem all too piecemeal to maintain any sort of consistency.
As a Rockies fan, I've seen both SF and SD play and, much like last year, the Giants concern me more. As god is my witness, I can't fathom how the Giants are able to score any runs at all ( Panda excluded ), but the Rockies have a helluva time beating them, particularly in SF. The starting rotation is just so tough to beat. I actually think that the NL West is gonna be tight all year, because each team has major weaknesses, and while I had high hopes this year about the Rox rolling, it's clear through two months that they don't have it in them to do so. The hitting is much too inconsistent, and lacks much power at all. They may well still win it, of course, but it's gonna be tight.
The Reds? Nope. I can't see it. I think the Cardinals are going to wake up eventually, and take over for good.

I'm a Padres fan but I don't think they can hang with the Dodgers and Rockies. They've lost all three series they've played against those two teams so far this year and the Dodgers are only just now figuring things out.

The Padres seem to me the best of the bunch gunning for third place. I strongly disagree with the notion that the Pads and Giants are identical, the Giants have a much weaker lineup (while San Diego's respectable offense is masked by their enormous ballpark, San Francisco's is surprisingly a hitter's park) which I think will drag them down to the bottom of the division.

I'd be surprised but happy (for the opportunity to see pennant race baseball at Petco) if the Padres were still in the mix for 1st place in September.